JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUGDIL, J.

CM-2395-C-2025

The applicant/appellant has moved the instant application under Order 51 Rule 3 for impleading the legal representatives on account of death of deceased appellant no.2 namely Smt. Dalip Kaur d/o Sh. Dayal Singh.

It is informed that appellant No.2 has unfortunately passed on 03.08.2019, which necessitated moving of the present application for impleading legal representatives left behind by the deceased as detailed in para 4 of the application.

Learned counsel for the applicant also states before the Court that there is no other legal heir left by the deceased/appellant No.2.

Notice in the application to the non-applicant for whom there is no representation continuously and today, Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate has been appeared having been duly served. He states no objection to the impleading of legal representatives of deceased/appellant No.2.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and amended memo of parties is taken on record.

RSA-2463-1993 (O&M)

Prayer

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal came up before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1993 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court dated 11.10.1999 primarily agitating that issues No.2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 have been decided against the pleadings made by the parties, which is totally distinct to the original prayer made in the plaint by the plaintiff.

The Conspectus Of Facts

2. The factual backdrop to the leading of present Regular Second Appeal can be juxtaposed to the effect that the plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Society respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession over land measuring 30 feet into 13 feet 9 inches and also for permanent injunctions restraining the defendants/appellants from raising any construction on the said land in dispute alongwith mandatory injunction against the above-said defendants/appellants to demolish the structure so raised.

3. It would be worth noticing here in the suit filed against Makhan Singh and Lakhabir Singh, who were arrayed as defendant in the suit wherein Makhan Singh died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were not impleaded as party.

4. The plaintiff-Hindu Sabha Society is a registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 formed with the aim and object of imparting education to the student community. One, Dina Nath, was the Joint Secretary of the plaintiff/society at that time and being one of the principal officers was authorized to file suit on its behalf. The Hindu Sabha Society/plaintiff is also owner of Hindu Sabha Market Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar, which is situated at a site separate from other buildings consisting of large number of shops. Out of those shops, one bearing No.46 was on lease with Dayal Singh/father of defendants No.2-A to 2-E, the legal representatives of deceased Dayal Singh and after the death of Dayal Singh, it is Lakhbir Singh, appellant/defendant No.2-A, who is continuing in possession thereof.

5. Defendants No.2-A to 2-E in the capacity of legal representatives of deceased Dayal Singh claimed rights of tenancy as successor as well as possession thereof in that character. Another Shop No.47 and 48 of Hindu Sabha Market were on lease with defendant No.1 Makhan Singh s/o Kishan Singh for long years and he is in occupation of the said shops as plaintiffs lessee. The land in dispute is in close proximity to shop No.46, 47 and 48 and it is for that reason the defendants are trying to grab the said part of the land against the interest of the plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Society. It was on the night of 24/25.12.1981 allegedly the defendants/appellant took undue advantage of closure of civil Courts at Amritsar for winter break and started raising construction on the land in dispute deploying masons and labourers, which land is claimed to be in the ownership of plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Society. It is further averred that in the forenoon of 25.12.1981, the plaintiff/society came to know about